Theory and History of Psychology, Heymans Institute for Psychological Research, Faculty of Behavioral and Social Sciences, University of Groningen Groningen, Netherlands ; Research Center for Neurophilosophy and Ethics of Neurosciences, Munich Center for Neurosciences, Ludwig-Maximilians-University Munich Munich, Germany.
Front Hum Neurosci. 2014 May 20;8:336. doi: 10.3389/fnhum.2014.00336. eCollection 2014.
Members of the Critical Neuroscience initiative raised the question whether the perceived normative significance of neuroscience is justified by the discipline's actual possibilities. In this paper I show how brain research was assigned the ultimate political, social, and moral authority by some leading researchers who suggested that neuroscientists should change their research priorities, promising solutions to social challenges in order to increase research funds. Discussing the two examples of cognitive enhancement and the neuroscience of (im)moral behavior I argue that there is indeed a gap between promises and expectations on the one hand and knowledge and applications on the other. However it would be premature to generalize this to the neurosciences at large, whose knowledge-producing, innovative, and economic potentials have just recently been confirmed by political and scientific decision-makers with the financial support for the Human Brain Project and the BRAIN Initiative. Finally, I discuss two explanations for the analyzed communication patterns and argue why Critical Neuroscience is necessary, but not sufficient. A more general Critical Science movement is required to improve the scientific incentive system.
批判神经科学倡议的成员提出了一个问题，即神经科学的感知规范意义是否与其实际可能性相符。在本文中，我将展示一些主要研究人员是如何赋予脑研究最终的政治、社会和道德权威的，他们建议神经科学家应该改变研究重点，承诺解决社会挑战，以增加研究资金。通过讨论认知增强和（不）道德行为的神经科学这两个例子，我认为，一方面是承诺和期望，另一方面是知识和应用，两者之间确实存在差距。然而，如果将其推广到整个神经科学领域还为时过早，因为神经科学的知识生产、创新和经济潜力最近才得到政治和科学决策者的确认，他们通过对人类脑计划和大脑倡议的财政支持，为其提供了资金。最后，我讨论了分析中所涉及的沟通模式的两种解释，并论证了为什么批判神经科学是必要的，但不是充分的。需要一个更广泛的批判科学运动来改善科学激励体系。
